R v Apps (No 2) - [2019] ACTSC 369

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Apps (No 2)
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 369
Hearing Date:	10 December 2019
DecisionDate:	20 December 2019
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [41]–[44]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – two counts aggravated robbery – plea of guilty – lengthy criminal history
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code ACT (2002), s 310
Cases Cited:	R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 106 A Crim R 149
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Aren Paul Apps (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Janackovic (Crown) P Bevan (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bevan & Co (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 137 of 2019; SCC 243 of 2019

BURNS J

Aren Paul Apps, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery. The first such offence [SCCAN 3739/2019] occurred on 18 October 2017. You pleaded guilty to that offence by way of joint commission with your co-offender, Toby Fisher, with the circumstances of aggravation being that you were in company and that you and your co-offender were each in possession of offensive weapons. The second offence [SCCAN 6092/19] occurred on 7 March 2019. The circumstances of aggravation with regard to that offence are that you were in company and your

co-offender was in possession of an offensive weapon, being a screwdriver.

The offence of aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment, 25,000 penalty units, or both. You were initially charged with the first aggravated robbery on 20 February 2019 in the ACT Magistrates Court and you pleaded not guilty. You subsequently failed to appear in that Court with respect to that charge on 9 April 2019, and you were later arrested on a warrant and brought back before that Court on 16 May 2019.

On 11 June 2019, you were committed for trial to this Court. On 25 September 2019, you pleaded guilty to that charge in this Court, five days before your trial was listed to commence. It cannot be said that this was an early plea of guilty. I accept, however, that it still had significant utilitarian value. I will reduce by approximately 15 per cent the otherwise appropriate sentence to reflect your plea of guilty on this charge.

With regard to the second offence of aggravated robbery, you were first charged in the ACT Magistrates Court on 11 June 2019 at which time you entered a plea of not guilty. The matter was adjourned to 2 July 2019, but on that date you did not attend Court. You next appeared in Court on 9 July 2019 at which time bail was refused and you were remanded in custody until 23 July 2019.

The matter was then adjourned on two further occasions until on 20 September 2019 you pleaded guilty to the charge and the matter was committed for sentence to this Court. This was not a plea of guilty at the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Apps (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Apps (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 369
Case: [2019] ACTSC 369
Decision Date: 20 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Apps, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, a crime committed with violence or intimidation. He pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced by the court. Apps had a significant criminal history, which was taken into account during the sentencing phase. The case was heard by the court of appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on the appellant.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Apps was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and any other relevant factors. The appellant argued that the sentence was too harsh, while the prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offences and the appellant's criminal history.

The court of appeal reviewed the sentence in light of the principles governing the imposition of sentences for aggravated robbery. The court considered the appellant's criminal history, which included previous convictions for violent and serious offences, as well as the nature and circumstances of the current offences. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, taking into account all relevant factors. The court upheld the sentence and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appellant's appeal against sentence. The court affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, finding it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The appellant's conviction and sentence for the two counts of aggravated robbery were therefore upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [41]–[44]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.